Dr.GastroMayo said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
One thing that is still open after Dr.GastroMayo’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PathRoch said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I read this differently from Dr.PathRoch, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.PathRoch said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.